alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

CHINOOK SALMON REPORT

October 2005

Note: Bold numbers are not verified by DFG.

Winter Run Chinook Salmon Estimated Loss (Incidental Take) Spring Run Chinook Salmon Estimated Loss (Incidental Take) 

Daily SWP Daily CVP Daily Combined Season Combined Daily SWP Daily CVP Daily Combined Season Combined Da

Tagged* No Tag Tagged* No Tag Tagged* No Tag Tagged* No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag I

DATE Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated

Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss

1-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 6,739 2-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 6,736 3-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 7,031 4-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 7,040 5-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 6,448 6-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 6,589 7-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 6,494 8-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 5,249 9-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 7,489 

10-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 6,594 11-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 6,589 12-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 6,589 13-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 6,580 

14-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 6,643 15-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 6,595 16-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 6,643 17-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 6,600 18-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 6,586 19-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 6,596 20-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 6,586 21-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 6,539 22-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 5,809 23-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 5,471 24-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 4,866 25-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 5,953 26-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 5,508 

27-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 5,332 

28-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 5,988 

29-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 5,485 

30-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 5,406 

31-Oct-05 0000 0000 0000 0000 7,010 

Total 0000 0 0 0 0000 00000 195,785 

Winter Run Incidental Take Levels (Oct 1 thru May 31) Spring Run Incidental Take Levels for Season Combined Total (Oct 1 thru Jun 30)Tagged Yellow Light Level = ??? SeasonTagged Red Light Level = ??? SeasonNo Tag Yellow Light Level = ??? SeasonNo Tag Red Light Level = ??? Season* This number is determined by Winter Run Length only until the tags have been read.

Banks T
§ 19.55 Other businesses. ( a ) The appropriate TTB officer may authorize the conduct of a business other than that of a distiller, warehouseman, or processor on the premises of a distilled spirits plant if: ( 1 ) The business is not prohibited by 26 U.S.C. 5601(a)(6);
( 2 ) The business will not jeopardize the revenue;
( 3 ) The business will not hinder TTB's effective administration of this part; and
( 4 ) The business will not be contrary to law.
( b ) A person who wishes to conduct another business at a distilled spirits plant must apply for such authorization in accordance with § 19.73(b) or § 19.120(b) and receive approval from the appropriate TTB officer before operating the other business. The approval will specify whether the other business may be conducted on the bonded premises or on the general premises.
(26 U.S.C. 5178)
#### William H. Hale v. Albert J. Seligsbert and Others.

Application denied, with ten dollars costs.— Order signed. Present— Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Annual report.**
 
1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999
2000 | 2001-02| 2003-04 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009
2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013
 
SuDoc Number:J 1.1/18:
Item Number:0717-C-37 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000941242
 
April 19, 2018
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 18 , 2024.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 23

- 00795

- CR

CONSUELO GRAY , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 22

- 01816

- CRF

- 85

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Consuelo Gray appeals her conviction for manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance causing death or serious bodily injury

. Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.141. Appellant’s appoin ted counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why the re are no arguable2 grounds to be advanced. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 , 811

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response

. See Stafford
v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 60 days have passed and no pro se response has been filed.
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in
the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief

or a pro se r esponse when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for
review. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Zimmere r, and Hassan. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2( b).
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 187

 190

 190

 196

 196

 201

 206

 0

 0

 0

 0

 211

 213

 211

 210

 210

 208

 207

 206

 203

 200

 197

 196

 196

 196

 194

 187

 179

 176

 179

 0

 154

 161

 162

 152

 155

 161

 147

 0

 0

 0

 0

 148

 158

 149

 161

 166

 165

 171

 164

 154

 148

 146

 147

 159

 145

 124

 124

 135

 135

 145

 0

 176

 182

 184

 184

 187

 192

 189

 0

 0

 0

 0

 197

 196

 192

 196

 196

 194

 196

 194

 191

 185

 183

 185

 185

 180

 168

 158

 160

 160

 165

 0

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MAY 2018 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 4, 2018

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

SAN ANDREAS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
atec-ex101_116.htm



Exhibit 10.1

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 

ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC. 

2016 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

(As Amended and Restated Effective June 15, 2017)

This Second Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Alphatec Holdings, Inc. 2016 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended and restated effective June 15, 2017 (the “Plan”), is made and adopted by Alphatec Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), a corporation organized under the laws of State of Delaware. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Plan.


	
 
	
1.
	
Section 3(c) of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: 




“(c) Notwithstanding any provision in the Plan to the contrary, and subject to Paragraph 25, the maximum number of Shares with respect to one or more Stock Rights that may be granted to any one person during any fiscal year shall be 1,250,000. To the extent required by Section 162(m) of the Code, Shares subject to Stock Rights which are canceled shall continue to be counted against the foregoing limit.”


	
 
	
2.
	
This Amendment is effective as of October 25, 2018. 





	
 
	
3.
	
This Amendment shall be and is hereby incorporated in and forms a part of the Plan. All other terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain unchanged except as specifically modified herein. The Plan, as amended by this Amendment, is hereby ratified and confirmed. 




* * * * * * * * 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Amendment was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company on October 25, 2018. 


			
	
ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC.

	
 
	
 

	
By:
	
 
	
/s/ Craig E. Hunsaker

	
Name:
	
 
	
Craig E. Hunsaker

	
Its:
	
 
	
Corporate Secretary
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4072 

To remove a restriction that prohibits the use of Federal funds to pay 

for maintenance of the memorial to honor Tomas G. Masaryk in the 

District of Columbia. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2015 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY (for herself, Mrs. DINGELL, and Mr. BARTON) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To remove a restriction that prohibits the use of Federal 

funds to pay for maintenance of the memorial to honor 

Tomas G. Masaryk in the District of Columbia. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. RESTRICTION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS RE4 MOVED. 

5 Section 1(c) of Public Law 107–61 is amended by 

6 striking ‘‘or its maintenance’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
HILLS BANCORPORATION
                                   EXHIBIT II
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
<TABLE>
                                                                Three Months Ended      Nine Months Ended
                                                                  September 30            September 30
                                                              ---------------------   ---------------------
                                                                1998        1997        1998        1997
                                                              ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------
<S>                                                           <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>  
Weighted average number of shares outstanding (basic) .....   1,467,754   1,467,259   1,467,754   1,465,384

Weighted average of potential dilutive shares
   attributable to stock options granted computed under the
   treasury stock method ..................................      23,270      15,603      22,854      15,645
                                                              ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------
Weighted average number of shares (diluted) ...............   1,490,984   1,482,862   1,490,608   1,481,029
                                                              =========   =========   =========   =========

Earnings Per Share:

   Net income (in thousands) ..............................  $    1,819   $    1,753   $   5,396  $   5,299
                                                             ==========   ==========   =========  =========

   Earnings per common share:
     Basic ................................................  $     1.24   $     1.19   $    3.68  $    3.61
                                                             ==========   ==========   =========  =========

     Diluted ..............................................        1.22         1.18        3.62       3.58
                                                             ==========   ==========   =========  =========
</TABLE>
#### S. S. Clark *v.*Thompson S. Smith.

*Agency—authority to collect money.*Authority in an agent to sell goods upon a credit does not show an authority in him to receive money in payment, and unless the principal has held such agent out to another as having authority to collect, a payment to him is not good.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of De Witt county.; the Hon. Lyman Lacey, Judge, presiding.

This was an action of assumpsit, by the appellant against the appellee, to recover the price for a bill of goods sold by the appellant to the appellee. The defense was, payment to Richards, the appellant’s agent, at the time he ordered the goods.

It seems Richards was employed to go out and solicit orders for whisky and send them to the plaintiff, who testified that Richards had no right to collect any of the money or receipt in his name.

There was a judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

Messrs. Fuller & Graham, for the appellant.

Messrs. Moore & Warner, and Messrs. Donahue & Kelly, for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Dickey

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The majority of the court are of the opinion that the proof in this record not only fails to show that Richards had authority to collect for Clark, but also think there is not evidence sufficient to support the proposition that Clark held Richards out to Smith as having such authority. While, perhaps, power to make contracts for the sale of goods upon a credit may be inferred from the letter of July 2, 1874, yet there is *299nothing in the letter from which authority to receive money in payment can properly be inferred. The verdict is not supported by the proofs, and the exception to the ruling of the court in refusing a new trial was well taken.

The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*
§ 203.3 When an individual is performing service for an employer. ( a ) The legal relationship of employer and employee is defined by the act. Thus, an individual is performing service for an employer if: ( 1 ) He is subject to the right of an employer, directly or through another, to supervise and direct the manner in which his services are rendered; or
( 2 ) In rendering professional or technical services he is integrated into the staff of the employer; or
( 3 ) He is rendering personal services on the property used in the operations of the employer and the services are integrated into those operations.
( b ) The provisions in paragraph (a) of this section are controlling irrespective of whether the service is performed on a part-time basis, and, with respect to paragraph (a)(1) of this section, irrespective of whether the right to supervise and direct is exercised.
### §2805. Withdrawal of Federal recognition or participation

The President may withdraw Federal recognition or participation whenever he finds that continuing recognition or participation would be inconsistent with the national interest and with the purposes of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 91–269, §5, May 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 272.)
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-13-00782-CV

BANDIER REALTY PARTNERS, LLC AND SWITCHBACK VENTURES, LLC, 

Appellants

V.

SSC OPPORTUNITY PARTNERS, LLC, Appellee

Appeal from the 215th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2011-43194).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on June 14, 

2013. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly 

raised by the parties, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the trial court’s 

judgment in the following respect: the judgment awarded actual damages without legally 

sufficient evidence of causation. Accordingly, the Court reverses the trial court’s 

judgment and renders judgment that SSC Opportunity Partners, LLC take nothing from 

Bandier Realty Partners, LLC and Switchback Ventures, LLC.

The Court orders that the appellee, SSC Opportunity Partners, LLC, pay all 

appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.
Judgment rendered August 27, 2015.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Massengale. Opinion

delivered by Justice Massengale.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4147 

To apologize for the treatment of Italian Americans during World War II. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 1, 2015 

Ms. LOFGREN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To apologize for the treatment of Italian Americans during 

World War II. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. APOLOGY FOR THE TREATMENT OF ITALIAN 

4 AMERICANS DURING WORLD WAR II. 

5 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

6 (1) Over 15 million Italians have immigrated to 

7 the United States since 1852. 

8 (2) Italian immigrants have provided a culture 

9 and heritage that has enriched American life. 

10 (3) The treatment of Italian Americans during 

11 World War II was authorized by the Act of July 6, 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4147 IH

1 1798 (Chapter 66 Sec. 1; 1 Stat. 577; 50 U.S.C. 21; 

2 commonly known as the Alien Enemies Act). 

3 (4) Additional authority for the treatment of 

4 Italian Americans during World War II was based 

5 on Executive Order 9066 (7 Fed. Reg. 1407) and 

6 Executive Order 9102 (7 Fed. Reg. 2165). 

7 (5) These orders required Italian-born citizens 

8 and their families to carry identification cards, face 

9 travel restrictions, and obey curfews. 

10 (6) These orders authorized the seizure of per11 sonal property. 

12 (7) 10,000 Italian Americans living on the West 

13 Coast were forced to leave their homes and were 

14 prohibited from entering coastal zones during World 

15 War II. 

16 (8) Thousands of Italian American immigrants 

17 were arrested and hundreds were interned in mili18 tary camps during World War II. 

19 (9) The treatment of Italian Americans during 

20 World War II needs to be acknowledged in order to 

21 remember those whose lives were unjustly disrupted 

22 and whose freedoms were violated. 

23 (10) Acknowledging and apologizing for the 

24 treatment of Italian Americans during World War II 

25 would help repair the Italian American community 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4147 IH

1 and would discourage the occurrence of similar in2 justices and violations of civil liberties in the future. 

3 (b) STATEMENT OF CONGRESS.—For these funda4 mental violations of the basic civil liberties and constitu5 tional rights of Italian Americans during World War II, 

6 Congress apologizes on behalf of the Nation. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
(No. 6764

#### A-1 Ambulance Service, Inc., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

*Opinion filed November 13, 1972.*

A-1 Ambulance Service, Inc., Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 123

 122

 111

 117

 98

 96

 107

 94

 95

 95

 91

 103

 115

 97

 113

 103

 94

 103

 87

 79

 80

 82

 82

 100

 99

 82

 80

 80

 99

 87

 86

 90

 87

 87

 83

 82

 82

 83

 83

 85

 82

 80

 79

 83

 86

 85

 81

 79

 74

 74

 75

 72

 77

 75

 76

 74

 73

 73

 75

 78

 98

 97

 94

 93

 92

 85

 88

 86

 88

 88

 87

 86

 89

 87

 97

 96

 86

 87

 78

 76

 78

 77

 80

 82

 82

 78

 76

 76

 82

 82

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2015 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 1, 2015

HIGH LOW MEAN

 78.7

 80.1

 78.9

 79.2

 80.9

 83.3

 84.1

 87.2

 83.6

 79.4

 83.4

 86.5

 87.8

 85.5

 83.9

 83.5

 84.6

 84.4

 82.9

 82.7

 82.2

 80.9

 82.1

 83.0

 85.2

 86.4

 83.7

 84.8

 84.3

 85.9

 70.1

 70.8

 70.6

 69.8

 72.0

 73.6

 74.5

 76.8

 78.8

 76.3

 73.1

 76.0

 78.1

 76.4

 75.2

 73.8

 74.7

 74.8

 73.7

 74.3

 74.3

 72.5

 73.0

 73.7

 75.9

 77.4

 77.4

 76.9

 75.9

 77.3

 74.1

 75.1

 74.8

 74.4

 76.4

 78.3

 79.1

 81.8

 81.0

 77.4

 77.8

 81.0

 82.7

 81.1

 79.3

 78.6

 79.4

 79.4

 78.2

 78.4

 78.0

 76.5

 77.3

 78.2

 80.2

 81.6

 80.6

 80.5

 80.1

 81.3

HIGH LOW MEAN

 8.9

 8.8

 8.8

 9.0

 8.7

 8.6

 8.4

 8.1

 8.1

 8.6

 8.8

 8.4

 8.1

 8.2

 8.5

 8.7

 8.6

 8.4

 8.5

 8.4

 8.3

 8.5

 8.3

 8.2

 8.0

 7.9

 7.8

 7.8

 7.9

 7.6

 7.7

 7.7

 7.5

 7.7

 7.5

 7.2

 7.2

 6.9

 6.6

 6.9

 7.3

 6.9

 6.6

 6.7

 6.9

 7.0

 7.0

 7.0

 7.0

 7.0

 7.1

 7.3

 7.2

 7.1

 6.9

 6.8

 6.7

 6.9

 6.8

 6.7

 8.2

 8.1

 8.0

 8.2

 7.9

 7.7

 7.6

 7.3

 7.3

 7.6

 7.9

 7.5

 7.2

 7.3

 7.5

 7.6

 7.6

 7.5

 7.6

 7.5

 7.6

 7.7

 7.7

 7.5

 7.3

 7.2

 7.2

 7.3

 7.3

 7.1

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIPON ON THE STANISLAUS RIVER

 ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS WATER TEMPERATURE, DEG DISSOLVED OXYZEN, PPM
#### Isaac Peiser, Appellant, v. Edwin L. Kalish and Others, as Surviving Trustees, etc., and Others, Impleaded, etc., Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to plaintiff to serve an amended complaint on payment of costs in this court and in the court below. No opinion. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Clarke, Scott and Hotchkiss, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF QUINTANA MARITIME LIMITED

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul J. Cornell, Chief Financial Officer of Quintana Maritime Limited (the Company), hereby certify, to my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Paul J. CornellPaul J. CornellChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


Date: March 8, 2007
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of ALCO, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the "Report"), I, Andrew Liu, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1) The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Company's financial position and results of operations.      By: /s/ Andrew Liu, CEO and Chairman  Date:November 12, 2010